Can we rename this thread to the daily German terrorism thread?
this thread isn't about a terror incident though but rather a workplace murder
Can we rename this thread to the daily German terrorism thread?
You didn't say 'Middle East', you said 'that region' which in the context of the question you were asking implied 'that' meant the region they were a dictator in.
surely by the very fact they travelled though several countries illegally they're all criminals
Before you let someone into your house you tend to vet them, don't you?
Instead of throwing open the door and saying "everybody is welcome".
Whilst yes, we should deal with them on a case-by-case basis now, it's already far too late. They are all inside, the good and the bad, and the power to remove the bad ones in non-existent anyhow.
This whole situation is a monumental **** up. We're all going to have to get used to this kind of attack being a weekly occurrence for a while.
Besides, this isn't "every asylum seeker". This is about asylum seekers from countries where a sizeable number of people think the West is their enemy. Or at the very least, think of us as "infidels", and of less worth than their own people. Because it's what they're taught.
And the segregated communities with "honour killings" for adopting western ideas, or having western friends, do drive that point home. At what point do you just throw your hands in the air and say "western culture is incompatible with certain middle eastern cultures"? When do you admit that?

Haven't you just got a corridor for the migrants to pass through and don't let any stay?

The crusades were a blip on history when comparing Islamic conquests.
Unfortunately some elements of Islam have never got past medieval culture. That's the problem.
But is the muslim dental assistant of my (excellent) dentist a hardline extremist? Is the Turkish wife of my friend Dave who observes Ramadan and some other Islamic festivals, and who wears western clothing, no head covering and has a job a hardline extremist?
So, we wake up to yet another attack in Germany. Will come back later to see if there are any more attacks.
I can tell you what I would hope.
I would hope those 1 million + young men would stop talking about how they are running from tyranny towards enlightenment and democracy and actually go and fight for what they want over there. Like Europeans had to do to get what they now have - that was earned.
But let's face it this isn't refugees they are largely economic immigrants - they left their chance to make something of their own country behind, they left their wives and mothers behind, the left their siblings and children behind. They are cowards. They then commit atrocities and assaults like cowards.
Whether it is Islam shaping their society, Islam, their culture without Islam who the hell knows where it weighs there but the fact remains they are incompatible and need to go. Let's face it Merkel wanted them to work but this lot are work shy it's not in their nature to work hard. Hell they can't even stand up for their own families. They don't want work they want free money.
because we had lot's more apologists on here and out there with their welcome all refugees banners.Theoretical question for you here.
A man kills 2 people. The man is 30 years old. For the first 25 years of his life he is a Muslim fanatic. He then renounces Islam but retains his violent nature for the next 5 years. Would you then describe him after that attack as Muslim or non-Muslim?
(change that for Jew, immigrant, furry whatever I don't care but the point stands it's very convenient to label people according to our bias both sides are doing it here)

Alternatively you can look at why the person did what they did and judge them based on that, rather than use convenient labels that may not fit (and as you correctly point out are used significantly as bias in many cases. Ironically I think this is something regulus is completely missing the point on time and time again - along with many others mentioning "sympathizer" and "apologist" time and time again).
That is rather odd. If he fails the asylum case then why not deport him, rather than let him stay? There seems to be a major crack in Germany's asylum policy.
Did the French and Polish up and desert their country in the numbers we are talking about whilst leaving their families behind? Some men did so they could fight for their countries whilst based from the UK. Jews to my recollection were spread across countries and not a particular country. Maybe I am wrong there too but I don't remember a specific Jewish country in Europe?
Because it isn't a simple yes/no question. The reply written was in response to that fact.
But I assume what you want me to say/think is that because he was Muslim at one point the fact he was violent was because he grew up with Islam, and as such the violence should still be attributed to Islam?
Rather than the possibility that he grew up violent/nasty for no reason related to Islam. His violence and extreme views made him gravitate towards an extreme teaching of Islam, which he then denounced but continued on the same violent streak he had since childhood.
Now for this fictitious man, can you provide evidence one is wrong and one is right? Or is the observers preconceived notion clouding their judgement?
Very true, and given the climate those with ISIS sympathies (whether directed by ISIS or not), might well have taken advantage of Merkel's foolishness. It was remarkably stupid of Merkel to 'open the doors' in the way she did. Taking individuals into a country is one thing, but to take vast numbers without security vetting is as irresponsible as it comes. German guilt regarding WW2 and it's aftermath still influences policy.
Why didn't the German Jews stay in Germany and fight the rise of Hitler and the subsequent internment of them in concentration camps. There were plenty of them... Obviously that notion should be scorned, yet that's essentially the argument you just put across for Male Syrian refugees.
The British conquested out the biggest Empire in history around the 19th century.
But this is in the past.
Hundreds of thousands of each did yes. Alongside the millions that have left Syria, with their wives and families.
Why didn't the German Jews stay in Germany and fight the rise of Hitler and the subsequent internment of them in concentration camps. There were plenty of them... Obviously that notion should be scorned, yet that's essentially the argument you just put across for Male Syrian refugees.
As I said in a previous thread after linking to an article pointing out the six richest countries are way behind in the helping of refugees that a significant number of poorer countries - perhaps we should be helping the refugees at the source (refugee camps) more, and then not only the fittest (who can travel a few thousand miles, much of it on foot) will get the help from us. Perhaps it would help stem the tide if families weren't so desperate for money to feed and cloth themselves that people had to travel in the first place.
The default premise seems to be so many people coming here are economic migrants. Is there any actual evidence of that? If so is there evidence that these so called economic migrants are just spending their money frivolously or are they actually sending money back to their families in refugee camps in turkey, Jordan and the myriad of other countries hosting more refugees than us.
The next question is why are we still arguing about helping refugees when the vast, vast majority of them are just trying to survive.